This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I give a crap about what is best for the taxpayers and the public. and for the life of me, I cannot find a single good thing public sector unions do for the public or the taxpayers (which are sadly different groups)

Fact is that I did not make that claim. I did speak about the reality that in 2014 the publication of the information in question, in a information age? Can and will be used by bad actors, this is why said is no longer acceptable. You don't like my comparison that responsible businesses in the real world realize that private info (like who and who is not a dues payer) can be used by bad actors for obvious purposes? No surprise there, as your "awareness" of what I have said in this thread is likely muted owing to that WiFi signal under the aforementioned bridge. Which also lead you to make the mistake of thinking that this is all about my "awareness" in the first place. That would seem to be an ad hom approach to the topic, I know what to do about that weak chaff.

I give a crap about what is best for the taxpayers and the public. and for the life of me, I cannot find a single good thing public sector unions do for the public or the taxpayers (which are sadly different groups)

Perhaps, you can explain why Texas teachers are better than MA teachers because they cannot collectively bargain with a public union.

so how are children in your school benefited by the existence of a union. are you held to higher teaching standards by the Union? do you provide more value to the taxpayers?

or do you support the union for merely gaining you more benefits?

Yes, because we are not afraid to be a part of the discussion and be a voice at the table. That is the only way to affect change. Also, we have fair and decent benefits. That makes the profession attractive to well qualified candidates rather than just a warm body to fill a spot.

Yes, because we are not afraid to be a part of the discussion and be a voice at the table. That is the only way to affect change. Also, we have fair and decent benefits. That makes the profession attractive to well qualified candidates rather than just a warm body to fill a spot.

That's a pretty thin argument. i went to a private school that was not unionized and the teachers actually made less than the big public school district. My brother is a director of another top private school and confirms the same thing. yet, the quality of teachers those two schools obtain were vastly superior to the big Cincinnati Public schools though the magnet school-Walnut Hills has some very good teachers. unlike public schools where most of the teachers have masters in "teaching" my HS teachers had masters in the actual subjects they taught. For example, my senior year the Advanced Bio teacher had a masters in biology from williams, the History teacher had a masters in american history from Harvard, the AP calculus teacher had a masters from U of Penn in math, and the English teacher had a doctorate in that subject from Columbia. The Spanish teacher didn't have a Masters in spanish-but his masters was in English (he taught English as an Anglican Missionary from Britain in South America for 20 years before coming to the states)

Yes, because we are not afraid to be a part of the discussion and be a voice at the table. That is the only way to affect change. Also, we have fair and decent benefits. That makes the profession attractive to well qualified candidates rather than just a warm body to fill a spot.

Unions protect unqualified teachers by using pro-union legal protections to prohibit former employers that terminated them to disclose why. This allows unqualified people to remain in the profession.

That's a pretty thin argument. i went to a private school that was not unionized and the teachers actually made less than the big public school district. My brother is a director of another top private school and confirms the same thing. yet, the quality of teachers those two schools obtain were vastly superior to the big Cincinnati Public schools though the magnet school-Walnut Hills has some very good teachers. unlike public schools where most of the teachers have masters in "teaching" my HS teachers had masters in the actual subjects they taught. For example, my senior year the Advanced Bio teacher had a masters in biology from williams, the History teacher had a masters in american history from Harvard, the AP calculus teacher had a masters from U of Penn in math, and the English teacher had a doctorate in that subject from Columbia. The Spanish teacher didn't have a Masters in spanish-but his masters was in English (he taught English as an Anglican Missionary from Britain in South America for 20 years before coming to the states)

Teaching in a private school is far different than teaching in a public school. In order to entice the best and the brightest to schools that can't cherry pick the student body, giving them decent pay is a good way. Even with that, many don't stick around after 5 years.

What do you mean "private employers can't do that?" Can't do what? Of course they can. For one thing, at-will employment, for anything thing, basic personnel policies can set their own progressive disciplinary policies as well as list various specific grounds for immediate termination.

If employment law fully protected bad non-union employees the same as unions protect bad union member employees, then what purpose would the unions serve?

The left wing is fundamentally nonsensical when it comes to unions. Most of the time the left wing bleats about the plight of the unemployed, how they just can't catch a break and struggle so mightily to get by, but then they support unions, which seek at every opportunity to make it impossible for these unemployed to compete with their workers. One moment the left wing wants to accommodate the unemployed and underemployed, and the next moment the left wing is a champion of the unions who do everything in their power to suppress the unemployed and underemployed.

Unions are simply labor cartels that buy politicians and legal protections that allow them to legally and artificially constrict the supply of labor in a certain firm or industry in order to drive up its price. Unions insulate their own members from any competition from those with whom they (the workers) would otherwise have to compete in terms of wage or job performance. Further, the artificially high price of labor in these firms and industries encourages further offshoring and globalization that bleeds jobs from the country. Unions are anti-competition and this screws over the un- and under-employed.

There is no logical reason a liberal should support unions (as they exist today, anyway). And there's no reason anyone, and I mean anyone, should support public sector unions. Even our most liberal President ever didn't support public sector unions.